Sample Referee Solicitation Letter – revised 11/7/14
UNIVERSITY TENURE LINE
Appointments, Reappointments and Promotions
Dear Dr. __________________:
The Department of __________ is considering the __________ of Dr.
__________ to the rank of __________ in the University Tenure Line (UTL). [His or
her] duties include scholarship in the area of ____________, teaching, [clinical care,]
and mentorship. [if applicable, add “administrative duties”]
This [appointment/reappointment/promotion] [would/would not] confer tenure.
One of the key sources of information for making such decisions is letters from
experts in the field. We would be grateful if you would be willing to take the time to
write such a letter of evaluation for us regarding Dr. ______________’s professional
standing. To assist you in your evaluation, I am enclosing [his/her] curriculum vitae
(and, if applicable, the candidate’s statement).
The attached rank-specific criteria for this action, along with the School of
Medicine’s “Guidelines for Application of Criteria,” should be used to inform your
evaluation.
Your evaluation should concentrate on the area or areas in which you feel most
qualified to render an opinion, keeping in mind the relevant criteria. The more specific
and evaluative your letter can be, the more helpful it will be for us in our deliberations.
In particular, we would appreciate your assessment of the quality and importance of Dr.
___________’s contributions and their impact on [her/his] field, broadly defined. It
would be helpful if you could open your letter by telling us how well and in what
capacity you know Dr. ___________.
[Include the following paragraph ONLY for external referees for actions
requiring named peer comparisons: appointment, reappointment, or promotion
conferring tenure or for new appointment to Associate Professor without tenure ]
How would you compare Dr. _______________ to other individuals whose work
is considered the very best in Dr. _________’s field, taking into account obvious
differences in career stages? The more specific, detailed and documented these
comparisons are, the more helpful they will be for us. The following individuals come to
mind: [Please provide names and institutions of five scholars whose rank is at least that
being proposed for the candidate and who can be compared appropriately with the
candidate in an effort to evaluate the candidate’s distinction and impact in a broadly
defined field.]
[If the candidate performs clinical duties at Stanford or one of our affiliated
institutions, in letters to internal referees please include EITHER:
(1) The following paragraph (enclosing the CES form itself):
We have also included a Clinical Excellence Survey form. If you have knowledge of the
candidate’s clinical performance, we would appreciate your completion and return of this
form along with your evaluative letter.
OR
(2) The following paragraph referencing an electronic survey:]
In a separate email communication, we will also send you a request to complete a brief
online Clinical Excellence Survey. If you have knowledge of the candidate’s clinical
performance, we would appreciate your completion of this survey in addition to your
evaluative letter.
My colleagues and I value your counsel and appreciate your taking time to
respond to this request. It would be most helpful to receive your letter by [date within
two or three weeks]. It is the policy and practice of Stanford University to treat your
response as confidential in the faculty review process. Response by electronic mail or
facsimile is acceptable.
Encl:
Guidelines for Application of Criteria
[other documents as applicable:]
Candidate’s CV
Candidate’s statement
Clinical Excellence Survey form
Criteria for [appointment/reappointment/promotion] to [rank, with or without tenure]
in the University Tenure Line
[Please insert rank-specific criteria here – see section 2.4J-L of the Medical Faculty Handbook,
beginning at
http://med.stanford.edu/academicaffairs/administrators/handbook/chapt2/chapt2_2.4new.html#_
Toc245041377]:
Guidelines for Application of Criteria
in the University Tenure Line
Scholarship
In assessing whether a candidate has met the criteria of being one of the best scholars at his or her
level of professional development in a broadly field, and of having achieved – or (in the case of
Assistant Professors) having the promise to achieve – true distinction in scholarship, judgments
should be informed by such considerations as whether the candidate is performing the kind of
innovative, cutting-edge research on important questions in the field that breaks new ground,
changes the way the field is viewed, broadens our understanding of the field, or opens up new
methods or new areas of investigation, and thereby has (or is likely to have) the fundamental
impact on the field that is expected from the very best scholars in the field.
Factors considered in assessing research performance or promise include (but are not limited to)
the following: scholarly activity and productivity; impact, innovation and creativity; recognition
in the field; ability to work effectively as part of a research team (if applicable); effective
communication with colleagues, staff and students; and professionalism, institutional compliance
and ethics.
Investigative independence (or, for Assistant Professors, the promise of investigative
independence) is expected since it can be a useful marker of substantive scholarly contributions.
It is anticipated that, in many cases, faculty members appointed or reappointed as or promoted to
Associate Professor or Professor will have a record of external funding, which is often viewed as
an indicator of how the work is regarded in the field and may likewise be relevant to an
assessment of the ability of a faculty member to carry out an excellent program of scholarly
activity.
Uniqueness of function is not, in and of itself, a primary criterion for an appointment,
reappointment or promotion. The fact that a candidate is the only individual teaching in a
specific area or doing scholarship on a certain subject, for example, is not relevant to the process
of judging the quality of teaching and scholarship and is not determinative in the decision to
appoint, reappoint or promote the candidate.
Teaching
A UTL candidate should show promise – or have a record demonstrating -- that he or she is
capable of sustaining a first-rate teaching program during his or her career at Stanford.
Teaching is broadly defined to include: the classroom, laboratory, or clinical setting; advising;
mentoring; program building; and curricular innovation. Teaching may include undergraduates,
graduate students, medical students, residents, postdoctoral fellows and in postgraduate and
continuing medical education. It is recognized that many UTL faculty in clinical departments
teach in small group sessions or with individual trainees.
Factors considered in assessing teaching performance or promise include (but are not limited to)
the following: knowledge of the material; clarity of exposition; style of interaction with students;
availability; professionalism, institutional compliance and ethics; effective communication skills;
helpfulness in learning; and ability to stimulate further education; and ability to work effectively
as part of the teaching team.
Clinical Care
Excellence in clinical practice or clinical care is a requirement for those faculty members whose
duties include such practice. Under normal circumstances, the proportion of time and effort
dedicated to clinical care will be less than that devoted to scholarship and teaching. (For those
faculty whose primary commitment is to clinical care, appointment in the Medical Center Line
[MCL] is normally more appropriate.)
UTL faculty in the clinical departments may assume responsibilities for the care of patients to
create the conditions necessary for medical research and for the teaching of medicine. Although
the development and nurturing of the clinical skills necessary for patient care places demands on
the time and the attention of the faculty who provide that care, appointments, reappointments and
promotions will still be made primarily on the basis of scholarship and teaching.
Factors considered in assessing clinical performance may include (but are not limited to) the
following:
General Clinical Proficiency: maintains up-to-date knowledge base appropriate to scope of
practice; maintains current technical/procedural proficiency; applies sound diagnostic reasoning
and judgment; applies sound therapeutic reasoning and judgment; applies evidence from relevant
scientific studies; seeks consultation from other care providers when appropriate; maintains
appropriate clinical productivity; and demonstrates reliability in meeting clinical commitments.
Communication: communicates effectively with patients and their families, physician peers,
trainees, and other members of the health care team (for example, nurses, nurse practitioners,
therapists, pharmacists); and maintains appropriate medical documentation.
Professionalism: treats patients with compassion and respect; serves as patient advocate (puts the
patient first); shows sensitivity to cultural issues; treats physician peers, trainees, and other
members of the health care team (for example, nurses, nurse practitioners, therapists,
pharmacists) with respect; is available to colleagues; responds in a timely manner; and respects
patient confidentiality.
Systems-Based Practice: effectively coordinates patient care within the health care system;
appropriately considers cost of care in medical decision-making; participates in quality
improvement activities; and demonstrates leadership in clinical program development and
administration.
The UTL may include faculty members who contribute indirectly to patient care in clinical
environments that heavily emphasize technology and/or a multidisciplinary approach. For
example, a radiation physicist may play an integral role in treatment planning for individual
oncology patients or a biomedical engineer may work closely with a surgeon or interventional
cardiologist to develop and implement new treatment strategies. In such cases, factors considered
in assessing clinical performance may include (but are not limited to) the applicable factors
described above.
(excerpted from Chapter 2.4 of the Stanford University School of Medicine Faculty Handbook)